Thinking Through Historyhttps://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com
Historical Thinking, All the Time, About Everything
Mon, 31 Dec 2018 05:16:12 +0000 en
hourly
1 http://wordpress.com/https://s0.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.pngThinking Through Historyhttps://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com
Baseball, The Cubs, and the Idea of Success: A Brief Reflectionhttps://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/2018/12/29/baseball-the-cubs-and-the-idea-of-success/
https://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/2018/12/29/baseball-the-cubs-and-the-idea-of-success/#respondSat, 29 Dec 2018 17:06:16 +0000http://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/?p=6547For my MLB-loving friends who also like great ideas, history, and big questions:

Joe Maddon’s potential extension as Cubs manager depends on finding answers to some deeper questions about both fostering and defining success. This article gets at some of the areas of concern–questions that need answering. The questions being asked get at issues that extend well beyond the Cubs, Maddon, and baseball in general

As a humanist who was first trained in the sciences, I’ve long valued questions around “chemistry.” What mix of qualitative and quantitative factors help create a good situation, or institution? When is chemistry more valuable than quantitative analytics?

Outcomes are easier to define and see. In baseball this centers on wins, and with businesses it’s profit. In higher education, it’s grades and rankings.

But, how to get there?

What mix of factors that gets an organization or institution from point A to B–changes over time–vary widely. How long does it take? When should one value continuity over flexibility and change? When should complexity be valued, or taken apart? How do individuals fit into schema? What should be the focus, or theme, of an organization? What examples from the past should be followed?

I think these issues center on critical thinking, and how critical thinking overlaps with good historical thinking. I firmly believe that solid historical thinking will foster success in one’s present life. Every concept that aids in excellent historical thinking will help one think properly about lasting success. – TL

]]>https://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/2018/12/29/baseball-the-cubs-and-the-idea-of-success/feed/0timlacyMidterm Theses on Trump, Republicanism, and U.S.-style Democracyhttps://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/2018/12/17/midterm-theses-on-trump-republicanism-and-u-s-style-democracy/
https://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/2018/12/17/midterm-theses-on-trump-republicanism-and-u-s-style-democracy/#commentsMon, 17 Dec 2018 12:42:07 +0000http://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/?p=65451. Every Republican who voted for Donald Trump, supported him, or has remained silent on his rhetoric and actions, before and after November 8, 2016, should be held responsible. Every party official that supported his nomination should be expelled from the party for a period. Every official who has accepted an appointment by Trump and not actively resisted his policies should be barred from work by future Republican officials. Every GOP voter who has supported Trump should take a self-imposed two-year timeout from voting and political activity. In that time they should reevaluate their core social and political principles, rooting out whatever vices or malignancies that caused support for Trump.

2. No party should be allowed to nominate a candidate for president who has not been cleared of psychological disorders and/or assessed for mental acuity. Some sort of psychological evaluation for stability is necessary in a political situation where the president is in control of nuclear weapons.

3. No democratic republic (or republican-style democracy) should be situated such that a minority party or cohort can maintain elected office through geopolitical/statistical manipulation–e.g., gerrymandered voting districts.

4. If Trump is not removed from office, this should be considered a failure of the U.S. political system. No candidate who has violated as many ethical principles as Trump should be allowed to continue in office. Here I refer primarily to economic conflicts of interest. No officeholder should be allowed to continue as such when their policies have been shown to enrich the candidate or their family. No candidate reasonably suspected to be implicated in schemes by foreign powers to obtain their election should be allowed to continue in office until their name has been cleared. The current legal process that has allowed Trump to continue in office while reasonable suspicion has occurred is a failure of our political system.

5. Most all centrist accommodations to Trump by Democrats since 2016 should result in that centrist being defeated for office. Accommodation to Trump is the same as a Trump-inclined Republican holding office. These Democrats are traitors to people of color, refugees, and all oppressed denizens and U.S. citizens.

————————————

How am I doing? What have I missed? – TL

]]>https://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/2018/12/17/midterm-theses-on-trump-republicanism-and-u-s-style-democracy/feed/1timlacyThe Sociology of Student Affairs: Higher Ed’s Equality-Driven Staff Cadrehttps://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/2018/11/02/the-sociology-of-student-affairs-higher-eds-equality-driven-staff-cadre/
https://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/2018/11/02/the-sociology-of-student-affairs-higher-eds-equality-driven-staff-cadre/#respondFri, 02 Nov 2018 10:45:54 +0000http://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/?p=6538This article*, which relay’s some socioeconomic characteristics of student affairs staff, partially explains why some in that staff circle *may* swing more to the left of faculty and administrators. The piece contains some notes to keep in mind when one is tempted to find fault with some of the excesses of student affairs offices.

I found this eye-opening: “In a potentially surprising twist, white men are slightly underrepresented in student affairs compared to overall student demographics, with 20 percent of positions being occupied by white men versus 24 percent of students overall. For leadership positions, this shifts somewhat, with about 33 percent of top jobs being held by white men. About 56 percent of the top officers are female.”

As a white male, I’m quite fine, personally, to be in a professional minority. It’s stimulating. It also keeps me culturally honest—even though my political sensibilities are generally to the left of my mainstream liberal staff/student affairs colleagues.

I also appreciate this note on the economics/pay of student affairs staff. We are apparently the socialist vanguard in higher ed employment: “White women — the more entry-level staff members — were paid about 96 cents for each $1 white men earned. This gap was slightly wider among leadership, where white women earned closer to 91 cents for every $1 their white male counterparts earned. Black men earned 97 cents for every $1 a white man made, and black women earned 94 cents for every $1 a white man was paid — among the black junior student affairs staffers.”

This article seems to yet another in a quiet InsideHigherEd series on the traits and attributes of student affairs staff. It has caused a stir with a few of my faculty colleagues, particularly those who have a penchant for finding fault with all “administrators”—a grouping which seems, to them, to include student affairs workers. – TL

]]>https://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/2018/11/02/the-sociology-of-student-affairs-higher-eds-equality-driven-staff-cadre/feed/0timlacyIdeas and Thingshttps://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/2018/10/24/ideas-and-things/
https://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/2018/10/24/ideas-and-things/#respondWed, 24 Oct 2018 15:23:34 +0000http://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/2018/10/24/ideas-and-things/Sage House News: The Cornell University Press Blog: Can we be forgiven for feeling overwhelmed by American culture and politics? Daily we read or more like hear about political polarization, deep ideological divides, a politicized Supreme Court, protests over race and history. Of course, there are histories and context to each issue…]]>

This promotional piece, by Ray Haberski, discusses a book to which I contributed an essay.

Can we be forgiven for feeling overwhelmed by American culture and politics? Daily we read or more like hear about political polarization, deep ideological divides, a politicized Supreme Court, protests over race and history. Of course, there are histories and context to each issue and conflict, but sometimes what we need is something more fundamental. Behind all these things are ideas.

Intellectual historians have attracted larger and larger audiences that are hungry for explanations about the origins, contexts, and consequences of ideas that seem more powerful than ever. How do we understand a society riddled by profound contradictions—a society that transitioned, most recently, from Barack Obama to Donald Trump?

Ideas matter. A lot. Most people recognize as much. Intellectual history—the study of ideas in the past—thus has a lot to offer people. With my colleague Andrew Hartman, we have co-edited a collection conceived with this basic fact in mind.

I surprised at how much the complaints of his students mirrored those I’ve heard from my past students (prior to the fall of 2018)—even though Schwab’s students are in philosophy rather than history. Here are the passages that resonated:

1. “There’s one kind of comment that always seems to bother me. There’s always a student or two who interprets classroom dialogue and exchange, challenges and rebuttals, as something gone fundamentally wrong in the classroom. As ‘fighting’.”

This speaks, I think, to both student expectations and their lived experience. On expectations, it’s about information exchange. On experience, little debate occurs in some classes.

2. “This particular course serves a population of students who are in fields requiring great deals of memorization and retention—dental hygiene, nursing, radiography, etc. As a result, they come to my class ready to memorize. And there are things to memorize: the definitions of autonomy, paternalism, and confidentiality; the features of informed consent and surrogate decision-making; and the arguments dealing with abortion, euthanasia, and the just distribution of health care resources. But “medical ethics”, for it to be worthy of the name “ethics”, must go beyond memorization.”

3. “…Class time includes more than the review of information. It asks students to reflect, to think, to articulate their view. When they find themselves on the job and a situation comes up in which they have to decide what to do, a textbook definition may or may not be helpful. They’ll have to be ready to think for themselves, to provide answers to questions that weren’t asked when they were in school. Moreover, they will need to explain why their answer is a good answer, and articulate the values that undergird their answer. When I ask them for their answers in class, it begins a dialogue. I ask questions of their answers, point out implications that may not be anticipated, and ask them to consider how others, who don’t share their worldview might interpret their answers. And sometimes they convince me. Every semester my view on some subject or other is changed by a perspective, argument, or view, a student articulates.”

Interaction is the key—between fellow students as much as the instructor.

4. “One reason it’s important to stimulate and challenge my students, whether they are pre-professional, business, or something else, is their need for this kind of thinking in their work life. To be able to think clearly and to challenge the given wisdom of a dominant perspective needs more emphasis. My favorite example in this regard is Warren Buffett’s attempt to avoid the confirmation bias. In the past, Warren Buffett has invited someone highly critical of him and his approach to annual meetings, just to provide a check on his on thinking and assumptions.”

Transferable skills include debate, conversation, and criticism.

5. “And this is why programs in Philosophy as well as other Humanities and Social Sciences are so valuable for undergraduate (and graduate) training. As strange as it would be for me to try to teach Accounting, so it would be for someone in an Accounting Program to teach Ethics. And so when I do get students from these programs in my classes, I push them and prod them. I explore their ideas and arguments. I ask questions, in the hopes that in the future, they will ask questions, too.”

In some ways, this is also why interdisciplinarity doesn’t work. The teaching and learning are so different in various fields.

“For it happens that God does not give some the assistance by which they may avoid sin, which assistance were He to give, they would not sin. But He does all this according to the order of His wisdom and justice, since He Himself is Wisdom and Justice.” – Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologica*, II-I, Question 79, Article 1 (Respondeo)

…it happens…

Is there a more fraught condition, or moment, in that short phrase? It happens–to you, because of you, around you, for you, in spite of you. Things happen, because God, in a mystery, does not at this time choose to give you the assistance you need. Shit happens.

If things seem to just happen, is it any wonder that people are irreligious–or that religious commitments are structured around a leap of faith?

But the real lesson here is this: If God has left us, at times, on our own, shouldn’t we always be on the watch for others? Is it possible that God is giving us the possibility to show our love in those mysterious moments when assistance is not granted to others? -TL

]]>https://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/2018/09/11/it-happens/feed/0timlacyConsumerism and the Commodification of Student Advisinghttps://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/2018/06/11/consumerism-and-the-commodification-of-student-advising/
https://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/2018/06/11/consumerism-and-the-commodification-of-student-advising/#respondMon, 11 Jun 2018 22:28:47 +0000http://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/?p=6525I really admire David M. Perry’s work, but something feels off, to me, about this Chronicle reflection on student advising and customer service. Bear with me as I work out why it left me feeling uncomfortable.

While an academic or student advisor is, always, at the service of their students, they do not, and should not, foster an *explicit* customer service mode of delivery. It’s fine to approach one’s work in a way that mimics aspects of customer service, but it ultimately harms the student if the approach is taken too far.

Advisors can, and should, do more than just provide answers and deal with transactional issues. And you can do this even if you see some students only once per year. The notion of developmental advising, for instance, turns advisors into adjunct instructors and life coaches. Your function is maieutic—bringing latent ideas, strengths, and goals into the student’s consciousness. This kind of work can be done in short or long sessions, if you ask the right questions—and try to see the assumptions behind the transaction presented to you.

An advisor who looks to fulfill a role that is more than transactional will foster, campus-wide, the goals of learning and self-discovery that (ought to) permeate academic life. The advisor who sees and addresses larger issues will foster an environment of learning and critical thinking.

Acting in a mere service role, however, will not assist your faculty colleagues in breaking down the pervasive ideology of educational transaction—similar to the banking metaphor articulated by Paulo Freire worked against in his writing. Capitalist modes of thought permeate today’s neoliberal university, and they must be resisted by all participants if we want higher education to fulfill its societal function.

I know that David seeks, in the article, to avoid the perception that he sees all educational work, including advising, as completely under “the hegemony of customer service.” David works to thread the needle, but I think he leaves advising exposed to the pay-for-goods ideology.

Advising interactions are already commodified, but we can keep them more complicated, broad, and fuzzy—in all the best ways—if we avoid overexposure to the language of capitalism.

]]>https://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/2018/06/11/consumerism-and-the-commodification-of-student-advising/feed/0timlacyThoughts on Deneen’s Anti-Liberalism: Or, Against a Confederacy of Abbot-led Cooperativeshttps://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/2018/04/21/thoughts-on-deneens-anti-liberalism-or-against-a-confederacy-of-abbot-led-cooperatives/
https://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/2018/04/21/thoughts-on-deneens-anti-liberalism-or-against-a-confederacy-of-abbot-led-cooperatives/#respondSun, 22 Apr 2018 01:21:34 +0000http://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/?p=6523I’m no fan of extreme individualism, but the way to constraining it is not through Patrick Deneen’s revisionist history of “liberalism” and a tyranny of the parochial. I was struck by this passage from Hugo Drochon’s reflection on Deneen’s new book (Why Liberalism Failed):

Rising inequality, the degradation of the environment, decreasing living standards, increasing loneliness, the destructive polarisation of our political world – Deneen blames liberalism for all the ills currently afflicting society. Surprisingly, he does not attribute these ills to the failures of liberalism, but to its success.

Like many conservatives, Deneen sees liberalism not simply as a theory about how to conduct politics, but as an all-encompassing ideology, like fascism and communism, that extends to philosophy, society and the economy. And it is an ideology that has won – which is why, on Deneen’s view, everything that is wrong with the world can be blamed on it. If liberalism is the cause of all our troubles, then the answer, according to Deneen, is to get rid of it altogether.

Conservative Catholics, it seems, always want to chuck the baby (i.e. freedom) with the bathwater (i.e. liberalism). Why? Because “liberalism” allows one to reject their faiths and local traditions (even while it preserves, ironically, retrograde conservative ideals via respect for the freedom of speech). Thinkers like Deneen, and Rod Dreher, seem to want a new ideological tyranny of confederate subsidiarity.

But really, the greater problem for conservative Catholics like Deneen is difference—because it means divisions of power and respect for difference. A deep respect for difference means power sharing, and trusting others.

Also, it seems that Deneen is confusing liberalism with “the state.” There is a political liberalism that can live with decentralization (i.e. neoliberalism being the deregulatory form of liberalism). But the problem is that decentralization allows too many local injustices.

I wish I could respect anti-liberals like Deneen and Dreher. But they can’t seem to respect others and difference. And they underestimate the role that localities play in perpetuating racial and gender injustices. They seem to want local cooperatives with abbots. What will not be allowed is democracy, nor the checks and balances of a larger democratic system of cooperation and justice.

To be fair, it does not seem that Deneen is calling, exactly, for confederacy of abbot-led cooperatives. But I can’t imagine what other form of community for which he might be advocating. And what of unity? And justice? And fairness? – TL

This is a wonderful recounting—touching and moving—from Dorothy Day about her years with the Catholic Worker Movement. Of course she founded that movement with Peter Maurin. This book consists of her memories, reflections, and wisdom gained from Catholic Worker activities.

Part I covers the beginnings, with Maurin, as well as the paper, the houses of hospitality, the farms, and activities on behalf of pacifism. Part II address the larger themes of poverty and precarity—and how Day, Maurin, and Catholic Worker staff and associates handle those themes. Part III consists of Day’s memories and intimate portraits of various associates: Maurin (in depth), Ammon Hennacy, priests and members of the hierarchy who have lent their support, and various writers and helpers of the Catholic Worker paper. In the last section, Part IV, Day reflects on various homes and farms owned and run by the Catholic Worker staff. The last chapter of that section contains Day’s integration of Catholic thought and sacred scripture as related to the movement. But she is unsparing of herself and the contradictions—practical, theoretical, and theological—that have arisen over time.

As a student of Day’s life and activities, I was, in the end, impressed with this recounting. My other points of reference are Day’s *The Long Loneliness* and years of readings in *The Catholic Worker* newspaper. The final chapter reveals her wisdom and fearlessness in assessing her life’s work, even as she gives it up to the Church and God. But the whole book provides an intimate portrait of a movement dedicated to the poorest of the poor in the United States.

In *Loaves and Fishes* you see a bit of libertarian conservatism in Day’s thought, arising from her anarchist tendencies. There is more of an emphasis on personal responsibility herein. I found this off-putting, and it left me a bit disappointed. I see now that there is an “early” and “late” Day, philosophically and theologically, with the “early Day” putting more emphasis on socialism and communitarianism. *Loaves and Fishes*, written in 1963, displays a Day that is a bit jaded—skeptical of government and bureaucratic solutions. Her sympathy for Maurin’s own skepticism about “the state” is more present than in *The Long Loneliness*. This derives, I believe, from the writings of Hilaire Belloc.

The copy of *Loves and Fishes* I read was a brittle entity from the Chicago Public Library system. Even though it was a hardback, the pages were not acid free, which caused its yellowing and frailness. The binding was also stressed, with many pages near falling out. That said, book’s message is strong. Day’s wisdom and power permeate the work. Her skill as a journalist, and fine memory, are on display in *Loaves and Fishes*. I will obtain a new copy for personal use, rereading, and reflection. – TL

]]>https://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/2018/04/21/my-review-of-dorothy-days-loaves-and-fishes/feed/0timlacyDay-Loaves-and-FishesOn the Vice of Civic Disengagementhttps://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/2018/03/10/on-the-vice-of-civic-disengagement/
https://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/2018/03/10/on-the-vice-of-civic-disengagement/#respondSat, 10 Mar 2018 16:23:12 +0000http://thinkingthroughhistory.wordpress.com/?p=6480This story provides a glimpse of precisely why the American experiment is on the edge of failure: people who should know better, and who should care, have turned over their duties and obligations, as citizens, to those with lesser, or nefarious, ambitions. Here’s the quote that frustrated me:

“I had been paying attention to the news for decades,” Mr. [Erik] Hagerman said. “And I never did anything with it.”

Of course the author of the story, Sam Dolnick, knew that people like me would be frustrated with Hagerman. So there’s a little pushback, offered via a quote that displays more than a tinge of regret from Hagerman, and another bit of commentary from his sister. The relevant passages:

“The first several months of this thing, I didn’t feel all that great about it,” he said. “It makes me a crappy citizen. It’s the ostrich head-in-the-sand approach to political outcomes you disagree with.”

It seems obvious to say, but to avoid current affairs is in some ways a luxury that many people, like, for example, immigrants worried about deportation, cannot afford.

“He has the privilege of constructing a world in which very little of what he doesn’t have to deal with gets through,” said his sister, Bonnie Hagerman. “That’s a privilege. We all would like to construct our dream worlds. Erik is just more able to do it than others.”

And then the author chronicles how Hagerman is attempting his own individualized recompense, or penance. He bought some nearby land, that he calls “The Lake,” that he’s planning to conserve and turn over to the public–after he dies, I think. He believes this future act will atone for his lack of engagement now (i.e. his “Blockade”).

Hagerman’s liberalism seems, to me, to be an offshoot of classical, Lockean liberalism. Despite the element of Teddy Rooseveltian progressivism behind his ecological conservatism, Hagerman’s “political philosophy” doesn’t, now, qualify at the 20th-century liberalism that grew out of Progressivism.

Instead, Hagerman is acting like a left(?) libertarian, or anarchist. He’s banking on his uncoordinated individualism to bring about a greater good. His severe reaction to Trumpism, and frustration (I suppose), with mainstream liberalism have driven him out of the polity.

The thing is this: he’s freeloading. That’s the vice of those with purported left progressive principles who opt out of the public square. Hagerman’s civic disengagement hurts everyone. He’s living the individualists dream at your expense, however indirect. This is no time for Thoreauian withdrawal—unless you’re having mental health problems. And perhaps Hagerman is in the midst of a mental health crisis. But there’s no indication of depression or long-term psychological trauma from Dolnick. This seems like a true, free-will opt out. It’s a dereliction of duty. – TL